Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The set of indígens territories that are part of this proposal are relevant to the protection of biological diversity.
Evidence B:The region is an important area for biodiversity and within that indigenous territories
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Area of high tonne of carbon in soil and biomass.
Evidence B:The region is an important area for biodiversity and within that indigenous territories
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The proponenente partners and indigenous organizations perform their own territorial agendas and participate fully in decision-making related to economic, cultural and social affairs, also acting on issues related to biodiversity conservation.
Evidence B:There are 6 participating countries with differing realities.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The applicant lists the territory with economic, social and cultural issues, but does not provide details.
Evidence B:there are 6 different areas, some explanation is provided.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Loss and fragmentation of habitate Example invasion of indigenous lands by non-indigenous people to settle in these lands to explore agriculture, hunting and illegal logging (GunaPanama), mechanized rice planting and cutting iletal wood (Embera, Panama ), pressure by armed grpos and groups funded by fazendeios causing murder and forced removal of (Miskitos and Mayangnas, Nicaragua) groups of loggers, narco farmers entrepreneurs pushing pressure to the oil palm plantation (Meskito, Honduras), pressure against associations of indigenous leaders (Costa Rica) and loss of biodiversity due to the advance of farming (Mexico)
predatory fish fishing, lobsters in the territories of peoples indígeans located in the countries mentioned above ..
Evidence B:In general the areas have medium to high levels of threat.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The applicant and its partner organizations have experienia in carrying out activities in indigenous territories. So there are conditions.
Evidence B:Ther reality varies per country but in in general there is a tendency to support IPLC led conservation
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Guatemala La Estrategia Nacional de Diversidad Biological y su Plan de Acción 2012 - 2022, el desarrollo guides de las condiciones political, legal, sociales, financieras.
In Nicaragua the National gobierno is promoviendo the implementation of REDD + on indigenous territories. In Honduras, nationale policies promuevem the conservation of these large ecosystems of Moskitia. In Panama since 1994, the Ministry doMeio Environment approve and recognized the Area Silvestre Corregimiento Protected Nargana of 100,000 has. In Panama, the Ministry of Regional Directorate of Environment in Gunayala, which coordinates various activities and strategies with the Congreso General Guna was established. Panama aprobó la National Climate Change Policy (ANAM, 2007). Mexico: Mexico approved the National Strategy on Biodiversity of Mexico (ENBioMex) the y Acción Plan from 2016 to 2030 .. Costa Rica is internationally renowned for is success in conservation.
Evidence B:the support varies across the region.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: The inicaitivas of prpponente and partner follow principles organizations that make up a collective management of natural resources, valorizand full dflorestas ingralmente and its multiple use, the direct participation of dentetores, sustainability and accountability, thus developed DIVERSAM defense projects and monitoring of indigenous lands, biodiversity conservation, sustentabiliade of indigenous communities.
Evidence B:Varies across the region
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Outside presented ÖSTROS projects in the areas of reforesramentos, protection of tararugas, promote the participation of women and youth in the territorial recupração processes between wrapping other. However it was not present more detailed information to enable understanding the impact of these projects.
Evidence B:A number of projects are listed but not all active in all the areas. it is hard to asess
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: The proposal seeks to strengthen govenaça and proteão of territories and natural resources, strengthen aconservação environment and strengthen the financial capacity of women and local communities in biodiversity management.
Evidence B:The approach is well aligned in a general sense but but different components are being implemented in different areas.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: The planned activities are relevant to alcansar results. Only it would be important to clarify what will be the local communities will be set to partiiparem project.
Evidence B:different components are being implmented in different areas it lacks clarity and cohesion
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The project will provide the implementation of major activities to protect indigenous land rights and environmental conservation.
Evidence B:The objectives are ok but the the acivities are dispersed and seem to lack cohesion
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: The activities and results are in line with the range of investments and the work plan may be designed appropriately to the budget.
Evidence B:hard to asess
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Were apresentads sources cofinanciaenamento to present details of the impacts.
Evidence B:hard to assess
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Total area of improved management: 3.85 million ha. The total area is significant and includes indigenous territories of people located in different countries of Mesoamerica.
Evidence B:from table provided yes it would be high
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: It refers to protection of sacred sites and enhancement of the participation of indigenous women in organizational processes PCLI for biodiversity conservation, culture and lengua
Evidence B:hard to assess
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The applicant makes reference to the approach to sustainability and increasing the capacity of communities to maintain governance of the territory and the preservation of the environment.
Evidence B:too dispersed over the region and lack of cohesive strategy
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The proposal was drawn up on the conscience of vision and enhancement of biological diversity and ancestral knowledge and articulates with the strategies, programs and policies national públcias of each country of the region.
Evidence B:The individual components are aligned
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: Utz’Ché promotes the participation of women in the different spaces of dialogue, making desição and development of capaciases.
Evidence B:the project is being implemented in different areas but the strategy seems to focus on proponent organizations
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Activities are impoaratantes for conservation. Also acting together various indigenous organizations from different countries of Meso America can serve as a strategy to strengthen indigenous organizations in the region.
Evidence B:hard to assess
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Claramento is shown that approach is led by an indigenous organization
Evidence B:two of the proposing organizations are coordinating IPLC and all the associates too
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The fact that the formation proponete have partnership with several grassroots organizations demonstrates its leadership in the field.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Yes, this demonstrated. Partnering with other organizations is an important factor of the proposal.
Evidence B:the proposing organizations and associates seem to have a long history
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The applicant already has experience with the management and implementation of projects and formed a partnership with ICCO, an organization with important administrative expereincia.
Evidence B:The capacity seems to be there
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: The organization has experience with project management above $ 200,000, is due accountability and auditing.
Evidence B:Similar large projects seem to have been executed before
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: He replied that possi experienia with the GEF, but did not explain what was the experience of thymus.
Evidence B:No